The hope and dream I'm projecting on the Obama Presidency...

Businesses that produce or sell; Butterscoth, Maple Syrup or Caramel flavored products will discover (and commit to memory) that these are NOT three names for the same thing.

They're not the same thing by any stretch, we don't need Obama to tell us that.

So, my more liberal than me friend is among those who think the country is better off with 59 D Senators than 60.

But if current trends continue (a big if, depending a lot on Obama and other stuff beyond Obama's control) it appears that the 60 vote threshold will be passed in 2010. Republicans are defending 19 seats, out of 35. Only 5 of those are considered safe by electoral-vote.com (though that seems a bit low--Brownback is probably safe, right? And I suppose McCain might retire, but he won't lose to Napolitano if he runs. Same I guess goes for Specter.) while 12 of 16 Democrat seats seems safe. Of course, the biggest problem on the R side is simply the number of seats to defend--if I'm figuring things correctly, this will be the last election that Rs have more seats to defend than Ds, at least until 2016.

Anyway, I figure 15 competitive races would be a lot. Probably more like 12.

Occasionally I forget just what a complete piece of shit Newt Gingrich is. Then he reminds me:

"I think there is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us, is prepared to use violence, to use harassment. I think it is prepared to use the government if it can get control of it. I think that it is a very dangerous threat to anybody who believes in traditional religion."

"Impose its will on the rest of us" = "have the same rights as the rest of us."

Maybe Newt thinks The Gays threaten his marriage. Given the track record there, it's very possible he's right: his two previous failed marriages have proven vulnerable to past threats, including a wife with cancer and a younger, presumably firmer piece of ass sighted nearby.

TenuredVulture wrote:So, my more liberal than me friend is among those who think the country is better off with 59 D Senators than 60.

But if current trends continue (a big if, depending a lot on Obama and other stuff beyond Obama's control) it appears that the 60 vote threshold will be passed in 2010. Republicans are defending 19 seats, out of 35. Only 5 of those are considered safe by electoral-vote.com (though that seems a bit low--Brownback is probably safe, right? And I suppose McCain might retire, but he won't lose to Napolitano if he runs. Same I guess goes for Specter.) while 12 of 16 Democrat seats seems safe. Of course, the biggest problem on the R side is simply the number of seats to defend--if I'm figuring things correctly, this will be the last election that Rs have more seats to defend than Ds, at least until 2016.

Anyway, I figure 15 competitive races would be a lot. Probably more like 12.

Brownback is retiring. I guess if Sebilius runs we'll have trouble holding it. If not Tiahart or whoever we nominate will win.

I'm sure at least 15 races are competitive at this point, but a year from now it'll be different when we know who is running for reelection and whatnot.

jerseyhoya wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:So, my more liberal than me friend is among those who think the country is better off with 59 D Senators than 60.

But if current trends continue (a big if, depending a lot on Obama and other stuff beyond Obama's control) it appears that the 60 vote threshold will be passed in 2010. Republicans are defending 19 seats, out of 35. Only 5 of those are considered safe by electoral-vote.com (though that seems a bit low--Brownback is probably safe, right? And I suppose McCain might retire, but he won't lose to Napolitano if he runs. Same I guess goes for Specter.) while 12 of 16 Democrat seats seems safe. Of course, the biggest problem on the R side is simply the number of seats to defend--if I'm figuring things correctly, this will be the last election that Rs have more seats to defend than Ds, at least until 2016.

Anyway, I figure 15 competitive races would be a lot. Probably more like 12.

Brownback is retiring. I guess if Sebilius runs we'll have trouble holding it. If not Tiahart or whoever we nominate will win.

I'm sure at least 15 races are competitive at this point, but a year from now it'll be different when we know who is running for reelection and whatnot.

If the economy is still in the crapper, there could be an even uglier anti-incumbent mood. Somebody like Blanche Lincoln would be history in that case, but so might Specter.

The Guardian is saying Clinton has accepted Sec State. I think she'd be a good Secretary of State. Certainly an interesting one.

jerseyhoya wrote:The Guardian is saying Clinton has accepted Sec State. I think she'd be a good Secretary of State. Certainly an interesting one.

I hate the pick. It seems like high risk, low reward.

I don't think there's much value, other than "no baseball, must fill hours somehow" value, in speculating about the 2010 elections. IIRC, four years ago at this time, people were seriously worried that the Republicans might get to 60 seats in the Senate because the Democrats seemed to have a lot of potential vulnerability in 2006.

As for Clinton taking the State job, my only serious problem with it is the risk of conflict/embarrassment with Bill--not even so much with his extramarital shenanigans as with the various international bad guys he's probably schmoozed for donations, done favors for, etc.

Any comments on the Obama transition team being comprised of lobbyists? Not a big deal in my opinion because I never bought into his whole talk of limiting the influence of lobbyists in his administration. Seemed to me that you'd have to be downright naive to think that his administration could be bereft of lobbyists, but it's turning into a talking point as being one of his first broken promises.

dajafi wrote:I don't think there's much value, other than "no baseball, must fill hours somehow" value, in speculating about the 2010 elections. IIRC, four years ago at this time, people were seriously worried that the Republicans might get to 60 seats in the Senate because the Democrats seemed to have a lot of potential vulnerability in 2006.

There's a 3 page thread on sour cream.

kruker wrote:Any comments on the Obama transition team being comprised of lobbyists? Not a big deal in my opinion because I never bought into his whole talk of limiting the influence of lobbyists in his administration. Seemed to me that you'd have to be downright naive to think that his administration could be bereft of lobbyists, but it's turning into a talking point as being one of his first broken promises.

There will be other broken promises that matter more.

Lobbyists aren't all bad. They have tons of institutional knowledge in Washington, and some of them are the smartest folks in town. If there is full disclosure by the lobbyist on who they lobby for, I really don't think there's anything wrong with it.

TenuredVulture wrote:

dajafi wrote:I don't think there's much value, other than "no baseball, must fill hours somehow" value, in speculating about the 2010 elections. IIRC, four years ago at this time, people were seriously worried that the Republicans might get to 60 seats in the Senate because the Democrats seemed to have a lot of potential vulnerability in 2006.

There's a 3 page thread on sour cream.

you're welcome!

4 Million for Inauguration?

I gotta get the hell out of here that week.

Woody wrote:

What are Steve Carlton's thoughts on this???

So Lieberman gets to go out and ACTIVELY campaign for McCain/against Obama, and gets to keep his chairmanship? Way to go, guys.

Bakestar wrote:So Lieberman gets to go out and ACTIVELY campaign for McCain/against Obama, and gets to keep his chairmanship? Way to go, guys.

That bothers me less than the fact he hasn't done his job, at all, not even a little. The guy couldn't find one thing to investigate in probably the most corrupt administration since Harding. 10 to 1 he suddenly finds his sea legs and starts investigating his butt off.

Was there any reason, other than a pat on the head from David Broder, for the Democrats *not* to punish Joe the Quisling? Is there even any reason for him--or any other Democrat who gets a bug up his ass about this or that issue, for that matter--not to believe s/he can go Zell Miller again with absolutely no consequences?

They're sub-pathetic. No other group, including Pelosi's House caucus, comes close in terms of utter testicular absence.